Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that execution of any scheme framed under Section 28 of the Act cannot commence once the Trust stands dissolved in pursuance to the provisions of Section 103 of the Act. He has placed reliance on Section 103 of the Act, which deals with ultimate dissolution of Trust and transfer of its assets/liabilities to the Municipal Committee. According to the learned counsel in case of dissolution, the Trust cease to exist as compared to suspension of Trust under Section 72-F of the Act. He has emphasised that, in fact, the dissolution takes place when all Schemes sanctioned under Section 42 of the Act have either been executed or executed to such an extent that continued existence of the Trust has not been considered necessary in the opinion of the Government. He has also referred to sub-clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the Act by submitting that it is only in a case where a sanctioned scheme is in the midst of execution that it could be continued but no new scheme could be executed if it has not yet commenced. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the expression used in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the Act 'completing the execution of any scheme sanctioned under this Act' to argue that it is only those schemes which have not been completely executed which could be continued to be handled by the Administrator after the dissolution and that no new scheme could be taken up by him as there is complete bar.

20. However, a significant question raised by Mr. Sarin concerning the effect of dissolution of Trust under Section 103 of the Act remains to be considered. The controversy can be conveniently answered by framing the following two questions:-

1. Whether the acquisition proceedings could be continued after dissolution of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust under Section 103 of the Act?

29. Section 3A of the Act further clarify that on the creation of a new trust all properties, funds and dues vested in or realisable by the State Government under Section 103 of the Act would stand transferred to, vested in and realisable by the new trust. Sub-section

(c) of Section 3A provides for same role for the new trust which is to be played by the State Government on the dissolution of the trust under Section 103 of the Act. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that merely because the trust has been dissolved under Section 103 of the Act, the acquisition proceedings would come to an end because the Administrator appointed by the State Government would take over the functions of the trust and the Chairman under the Act and would discharge the same. The expression 'completing the execution of any scheme sanctioned under this Act' has to be interpreted by keeping in view the word 'scheme sanctioned' which is the expression used in Section 41 of the Act. In the present case, the scheme was sanctioned under Section 41 of the Act on 17.11.2000 and notification under Section 42 of the Act was issued much before dissolution on 22.11.2000. Therefore, on the dissolution of the trust on 4.4.2002, under Section 103 of the Act, a sanctioned scheme cannot come to an end because it cannot be regarded as incomplete execution of a sanctioned scheme and argument to that effect would lack merit because it ignores the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the Act, which postulate that all properties, funds and dues vested in or realisable by the trust and the Chairman respectively are to vest in and be realisable by the State Government through an Administrator and that all liabilities enforceable against the trust would become enforceable against the State Government. Therefore, we hold that steps taken after issuance of notification under Section 42 of the Act, sanctioning the scheme, which include announcement of award on 20.11.2002, are the steps in the direction of execution of the scheme. The record further shows that the possession was to be taken after depositing the amount of compensation. According to the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, an amount of Rs. 3,59,00,000/- was duly deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector. Thereafter on 27.11.2002, the Land Acquisition Collector of the trust issued a notice dated 27.11.2002 to the Superintending Engineer of the trust that announcement on the loudspeaker as well as by beat of drum be made that the possession of the land would be taken on 10.12.2002.

However, before the possession could be taken on 10.12.2002, dispossession was stayed by this Court, vide order dated 9.12.2002. Accordingly, we find that all steps necessary for acquiring the land and vesting the same in the trust were taken. On the dissolution of the trust, the Administrator has worked on behalf of the Government and all properties, funds and dues vested in or realisable by the trust and the Chairman start vesting in and also could be realisable by the State Government. Therefore, we are of the view that the question No. 1 must be answered against the petitioners and the land acquisition proceedings could continue after dissolution of the trust. There is no legal bar to the continuation of the acquisition proceedings either under the provisions of the Act or any other law. Re: Question 2: